There is a speech by Hoppe about how the Malthusian Trap laid the conditions for the Industrial Revolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsmRIxjJ31s I just want to address concerns I have regarding the arguments presented in this speech. -The economics of the situation seem circular. If there really is a Malthusian trap scenario, then the geography of its occurrence is irrelevant. I.e., being in a harsher climate only means that the average optimal rate of population would be lower than in a more temperate or humid climate. Because the Malthusian Trap occurs in both situations, the only difference being a difference in population, then there is no significant difference in hardship and thus the sociobiological argument breaks down. (in fact, I would think this would work _against_ his sociobiological argument, since a larger population gives a larger chance of beneficial selection) --This is assuming away issues of an evolutionary timescale (although, if the sociobiological argument was based on a epigenetic preference, or a very vague meaning of the word 'evolution', then I could see the argument being plausibly formulated). -Even assuming away this argument (say, to give the benefit of the doubt, that the Malthusian Trap was meant to give an indication to the quality of hardship as opposed to the quantity), one would have to assume exceedingly rigid labor movement. If the primary factor that caused regions to get out of the Malthusian Trap and into a state of industrialization was some semblance of a higher than average IQ of the general population to be able to effectively utilize machinery, then in the marginal time period leading up to this point in history, there must have been exceeding comparative gains in such individuals compared to the general population, that they would be favored in a social Darwin sense. Put more succinctly, there is easier profit and capitalization to be made in an industrializing economy than in an industrialized economy (i.e., if a town does not have a well nor even knows what wells are, then it is obvious to any braindead expat what he could probably make a lot of money on). --Note that this argument leads back to the common Mises/Rothbard explanation of the industrial revolution: a proclivity of necessary conditions of economic freedom. ---Which reminds me to note that I don't really understand, nor really remember, any sufficient counterargument on the part of Hoppe on the Mises/Rothbard explanation. --(As a sidenote: think of all of the smart scientists, engineers, and what-not that immigrate to the United States)
Latest Projects
"Even when leftists talk about discrimination and sexism, they're damn well talking about the results of the economic system" ~Neodoxy
I love that speech. I think you missed a footnote remark at the beginning which is really the foundation of the whole argument. Hoppe mentions the law of returns. This law says that - for any given environment (natural resources, etc.) - there is some optimum combination (or combinations) of producer goods such that increasing any particular producer good beyond this optimum will reduce the objective exchange value of the consumer goods produced.
Translated to labor, this means that Thomas Malthus was right. I need to go back and read his essay because I doubt very much that Malthus was right for the right reason (I know that he asserted a linear relation between population and food production which is obviously false). In any case, not every amount of labor (a producer good) is as good as every other amount and it is not true that more labor is always better than less labor. At some point, the marginal productivity of one more worker will be less than the marginal consumption of one more worker and, at that point, you have what could be called a Malthusian trap.
Hoppe also notes that this has nothing to do with government population controls because the government cannot possibly know what is the right population. In fact, it is the family unit that Hoppe identifies as the natural regulator of population levels.
Clayton -
I am not disagreeing with the existence of a Malthusian trap, rather the consequences he derives from it (that it was the primary reason the industrial revolution occurred, as opposed to the ideas of 'slow, continuous exponential growth', or the idea that during the time of the industrial revolution certain economic reforms occurred which allowed it to be possible).
Can you point me to a timestamp where he claims that "the Malthusian trap" is responsible for the Industrial Revolution? I listened to the second half of the lecture again and I didn't hear anything to this effect - he claims that intelligence and a low time-preference were the primary drivers of the Industrial Revolution and that these attributes arose partly due to the Agricultural Revolution and partly due to the spread of humans to harsher climes.
You're right, I shouldn't have said that he claims that the Malthusian Trap implied the Industrial Revolution, as he doesn't do this. MY BAD. However: >these attributes arose partly due to the spread of humans to harsher climes. I think this was what I actually have qualms with (27:50-28:50 in the video for anyone else reading this thread). If you don't mind me changing things a little, please apply my counterarguments to that statement. I do not see how such attributes could arise if (at the risk of repeating myself): -Malthusian conditions in the Norwegian fjords and seasonless tropics are present, the only difference is it produces a smaller average population in the Norwegian fjords, thus providing less of an opportunity for selection, and because the same Malthusian conditions apply, the same hardships occur in both climates (both climates equilibrate such hardships). -The evolutionary timescale does not describe the difference in the span of only a few hundred years in which the industrial revolution took place. -The necessary assumption of exceedingly rigid labor movement.
-Malthusian conditions in the Norwegian fjords and seasonless tropics are present, the only difference is it produces a smaller average population in the Norwegian fjords, thus providing less of an opportunity for selection, and because the same Malthusian conditions apply, the same hardships occur in both climates (both climates equilibrate such hardships).
But this isn't actually his argument - the interesting feature of the tropics that he identifies is that one day is pretty much as another, there is a great deal of smooth regularity in the environment. There's very little need to plan ahead. But in the norther latitudes, there are large swings of temperature and precipitation - hence cultivation and growing - between seasons. This environment requires planning ahead - he doesn't mention it but if you think about it many animals that live in these regions must plan ahead, that is, store food for winter.
His argument starts with the fact that the Agricultural Revolution brought about the capacity for human beings to "store up" (i.e. grain storage) and that humans began to spread out into climates where storing up wasn't just a luxury, it was a requisite to survival. In these climates, lower time preference was mandated by Nature. Thus, time preferences were lowered by the capacity to store (Agricultural Revolution) and new environments where lower time-preference was required for survival. These new environments also selected for intelligence because intelligence is a key ingredient of planning ahead. This explains why modern humasn have both increased intelligence and lower of time-preference vis-a-vis our ancestors.
-The evolutionary timescale does not describe the difference in the span of only a few hundred years in which the industrial revolution took place.
He makes no appeal to evolution in any explanation of events subsequent to the Industrial Revolution.
-The necessary assumption of exceedingly rigid labor movement.
I don't know what you mean by this.
I question if that video is even real. We have an economist/philosopher talking about theory for 20 minutes, he states
There must be something else, some other factor that does not appear in economic theory which will have to explain all this. Now part of the answer seems to be obvious: mankind did not get out of the Malthusian trap because man could not keep his pants up.
And no one laughs- not even a chuckle? Obviously fake.
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
But this isn't actually his argument - the interesting feature of the tropics that he identifies is that one day is pretty much as another, there is a great deal of smooth regularity in the environment. There's very little need to plan ahead. But in the norther latitudes, there are large swings of temperature and precipitation - hence cultivation and growing - between seasons. This environment requires planning ahead - he doesn't mention it but if you think about it many animals that live in these regions must plan ahead, that is, store food for winter. His argument starts with the fact that the Agricultural Revolution brought about the capacity for human beings to "store up" (i.e. grain storage) and that humans began to spread out into climates where storing up wasn't just a luxury, it was a requisite to survival. In these climates, lower time preference was mandated by Nature. Thus, time preferences were lowered by the capacity to store (Agricultural Revolution) and new environments where lower time-preference was required for survival. These new environments also selected for intelligence because intelligence is a key ingredient of planning ahead. This explains why modern humasn have both increased intelligence and lower of time-preference vis-a-vis our ancestors.
This I concede, I referenced something like this in my original post:
Even assuming away this argument (say, to give the benefit of the doubt, that the Malthusian Trap was meant to give an indication to the quality of hardship as opposed to the quantity)
-The evolutionary timescale does not describe the difference in the span of only a few hundred years in which the industrial revolution took place. He makes no appeal to evolution in any explanation of events subsequent to the Industrial Revolution.
This is what I understood his meaning of saying 'selection process'. Unless he meant this in a more mundane social sense?
-The necessary assumption of exceedingly rigid labor movement. I don't know what you mean by this.
Sorry, I was being curt about this because I thought it would be rude to just copy-paste my original post, but this is a reference to the third point on my original post (tl;dr, skip to the last parenthetical statement):
one would have to assume exceedingly rigid labor movement. If the primary factor that caused regions to get out of the Malthusian Trap and into a state of industrialization was some semblance of a higher than average IQ of the general population to be able to effectively utilize machinery, then in the marginal time period leading up to this point in history, there must have been exceeding comparative gains in such individuals compared to the general population, that they would be favored in a social Darwin sense. Put more succinctly, there is easier profit and capitalization to be made in an industrializing economy than in an industrialized economy (i.e., if a town does not have a well nor even knows what wells are, then it is obvious to any braindead expat what he could probably make a lot of money on).
I question if that video is even real. We have an economist/philosopher talking about theory for 20 minutes, he states There must be something else, some other factor that does not appear in economic theory which will have to explain all this. Now part of the answer seems to be obvious: mankind did not get out of the Malthusian trap because man could not keep his pants up. And no one laughs- not even a chuckle? Obviously fake.
I know, it's the curse of the dry delivery. The same seems to happen with Doug French.